OK all you 5w-20 fans back it up !

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bottgers:
The discussions where people use 5W-30 because they're not comfortable using 5W-20 crack me up! There's sufficient info in this forum to show that 5W-30's suffer much more drastically from viscosity breakdown then 5W-20 does, so why not just start out with a 5W-10, because that's what you're doing by using 5W-30.

---

The unspoken assumption here is that there's no way to avoid getting to a lesser viscosity if you're trying to get a 30 from a multi vis. The data is right here, backed up by UOAs too, indicating that if you select a good 5w-30 (probably synthetic), or perhaps a 10w-30, neither vis breakdown, nor shearing, will be a problem.

What really cracks me up is car makers who suddenly change the recommended vis for their engines without actually changing the engines themselves. It's quite clear from info all over the place (including here, of course) that the motive for the changed recommendation is not the quality of oil or improving lubrication or overall performance, but rather, helping the car makers stay CAFE legal while still selling large numbers of low mileage/high profit SUVs. You get a ~0.1 mpg increase, and the maker gets the benefit of multiplying that fractional gain over the hundreds of thousands of cars it sells.

I'm not bashing SUVs (we have a Sequoia my wife drives), and I'm not saying that 5w-20 is necessarily bad stuff. Time will tell. Just don't pretent that the car makers just have the customer's best interests at heart and those who doubt them are dimwits who don't get it. C'mon, this is a discussion forum. The whole point is to air out and test ideas against what other members know. With all due respect, if you're uncomfortable with opinions that differ from your own, you're probably never going to enjoy participating in one of these boards. . .

 

[MNgopher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TallPaul:
Might I suggest a year on 10w30 also? You have great coverage of the back number, but what about the front ("w") number? Much of what I remember the argument being is that initial startup is the issue, so the 10 weight for start ups would provide some interesting data on the UOA.

---

Sorry, I will not go to a 10w30. In my climate, a dino 10w30 is not appropriate for use in the winter months. That can be many winter months here and a likely span two of my three to four changes per year.

 

[tenderloin]

It's quite clear from info all over the place (including here, of course) that the motive for the changed recommendation is not the quality of oil or improving lubrication or overall performance, but rather, helping the car makers stay CAFE legal while still selling large numbers of low mileage/high profit SUVs. You get a ~0.1 mpg increase, and the maker gets the benefit of multiplying that fractional gain over the hundreds of thousands of cars it sells.

 

[TallPaul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MNgopher:
Sorry, I will not go to a 10w30. In my climate, a dino 10w30 is not appropriate for use in the winter months. That can be many winter months here and a likely span two of my three to four changes per year.

---

You're right. You could run the 10w30 only in the spring through fall.

 

[MNgopher]

Yep, theoretically, I could throw 10w30 in over the next interval, which will likely be mid may to September. My thought on that is that while I could compare it to the summer runs on 5w20 and 5w30, that also tends to be the time of year that seems easiest on the oil in my case. Thus a 10w30 summer run may look excellent, I can't compare it to the more year around approach I'm interested in seeing using the 5w oils.

Besides, it simplifies my oil buying habits - for the next year I only need to stock one oil since it goes in both my Jeep and my Truck!

 

[pmt]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MNgopher:
I've more than proven to myself that 5w20 works fine in applications where it is called for.

Search the UOA's for my '99 F150 with the 4.6 that works for its living. The last UOA was 6000 miles while trailer towing, hauling loads, and plenty of 4x4 off road driving. It did just fine.

However, even though it works fine, out of curiosity sake I am going to see what a 5w40 will do in this application. I've run a year on 5w30, a year on 5w20, now for a year on 5w40. If that can't put to bed what the difference is, I don;t know what will...

FWIW, the 5w20 has done better than the 5w30, lasted longer intervals, and resulted in no additional consumption.

---

Hi MNgopher. I live about 15 miles from Lakeville. Anyway, which 5W-40 are you planning to try out? I'm quite interested because of my trials and tribulations with my 96 T-Bird 4.6L V8. Never consumed much oil at all until suddenly at 41,000 mi started to burn (no leaks) the M1 5W-30 that I had always used. Probably valve stem seals starting to crack, wear, or however they fail.
I switched to Delvac 1 5W-40 and the consumption is back to nil. But I do worry about the thickness of D1 at cold start. I've been using the old SJ D1, which is a little thinner than the later SL, so next change I'm thinking about GC 0W-30. Good luck on your 5W-40 experiment - I'm looking forward to seeing your results.
pmt

 

[pmt]

quote:

---

Originally posted by darkdan:
Hey! I'm in Owatonna!

The older 4.6L had valve stem seal problems. I'm not sure if any type of oil or autorx can keep them from going bad.

---

darkdan -
Yeah - I know what you are saying is probably true. On some of the Crown Vic/T-Bird forums people have said that one could use any oil and the 4.6L valve seals still will go bad. I think Ford changed to better ones in 1998 maybe.
I know that my using Delvac 1 or GC 0W-30 is probably only putting off the inevitable seal replacement, but I will resist as long as possible - consistent with not doing any damage to the engine on any other part. I have the advantage that we don't drive our pet (the 96 T-Bird) in the winter salt. Of course in Minn. that's about 6 months out of the year.
pmt

 

[Flashlightboy]

tenderloin,

I could see your point a bit more clearly if only Ford made the switch. Honda doesn't have a CAFE problem and they undoubtedly could exceed the minimum MPG requirements for years to come without changing very much.

On a side note to all the naysayers who are asking for 200-300k reports with the thin stuff, I say wait a couple of years. There simply hasn't been enough time to rack up the miles! Patience, patience, patience.

In the mean time I'd ask in return that all the thick browed, er, I mean thick oil supporters to start working on the list of cars with less than 200k that have oil related failures using something other than a 20. [Taps fingers][Taps some more and then gives up on waiting]

Sure my Nissan Pulsar made it to 262k miles on 30 weight but for chrissake, that's all there was! Touting a 200k achievement as though this is the Holy Grail means poop if you put things in the right context. The point being that many cars don't make it to 200k using a thick oil and perhaps thick vs. thin isn't really what we should be arguing about. Perhaps we should be extolling the virtues of proper maintenance instead. The Mighty Pulsar might have gone 300K on a 20 weight but no one will ever know.

 

[BlackF250]

PMT- Have you replaced your PCV valve recently? These motors will suck oil when the pcv gets dirty. The valve seal problem was corrected for 96. My 96 crown vic with the 4.6 has over 234,000 miles and only uses mayby a quart per 3,000 miles.

 

[tenderloin]

Flashlightboy

I am a pro 20W fan. Been so for a couple of years. I made the mistake of posting part of anothers posters writings and then I put a

under it, showing my disagreement with his statements. My bad

 

[pmt]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackF250:
PMT- Have you replaced your PCV valve recently? These motors will suck oil when the pcv gets dirty. The valve seal problem was corrected for 96. My 96 crown vic with the 4.6 has over 234,000 miles and only uses mayby a quart per 3,000 miles.

---

BlackF250 - the PCV valve was one of the first things I checked out when my T-Bird started using oil. It was fine. So if the increased oil consumption was not caused by failing valve stem seals, I don't know what caused it. I'm hoping careful oil selection will keep consumption within reason, without undue wear on engine from cold starts.
pmt

 

[Cerbera LM]

Can't complain about the results of 5w-20 in my Honda.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001312

Am puzzled by Honda, they spec 5w-20 in the USA but in the UK (where my car was built) they spec 10w-40 for the same motor. One would think fuel economy would be even more important there then it is here.

 

[darkdan]

Hey! I'm in Owatonna!

The older 4.6L had valve stem seal problems. I'm not sure if any type of oil or autorx can keep them from going bad.

 

[MNgopher]

I'm going to run the Rotella T syn 5w40. I already use that in my Jeep Cherokee, and I have found that between the Wal-Marts (ugh!) in Apple Valley and Shakopee I can keep a decent supply on hand. Decent price too - 12.84 a gallon.

The only other 5w40 I've seen retailed locally is Valvoline Premium Blue Extreme at a local Napa. They wanted $19 a gallon, but I passed since I'm running the Rotella.

I ran the Cherokee all winter on the Rotella T 5w40, and it started fine over the winter, so I'm not real worried.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cerbera LM:
Can't complain about the results of 5w-20 in my Honda.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001312

---

That's a 4-banger right? I believe Honda 4-bangers like the 5w-20 stuff. Also, how hard do you drive your car...do you do full-throttle sprints everyday?

 

[DavoNF]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cerbera LM:

Am puzzled by Honda, they spec 5w-20 in the USA but in the UK (where my car was built) they spec 10w-40 for the same motor. One would think fuel economy would be even more important there then it is here.

---

In a nutshell, there are no CAFE requirements in the UK, so they go for engine longevity over fuel consumption.

There can be no other logical reason for it.


Dave

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavoNF:
In a nutshell, there are no CAFE requirements in the UK, so they go for engine longevity over fuel consumption.

There can be no other logical reason for it.

---

Actually, there is a far more logical reason: the Xw20 oils are simply not popular in Europe. Castrol introduced SLX 0w20 almost 5 years ago and it was a universal bust. No one would buy it.

I think it's logical to conclude that Honda decided it would be a waste of time to recommend 5w20 in Europe when that oil is not widely available and people probably wouldn't use it even if it were. Honda has stated flat out that they didn't make the move to 5w20 in the US because of CAFE. They didn't need 5w20 to meet CAFE. And I think it's important to remember that unlike Ford, Honda only RECOMMENDS 5w20 in the US; they do list 5w30 as an alternative. One of the EPA requirements for a car company that is using 5w20 for CAFE purposes is that they must REQUIRE the use of that grade and NOT list any alternatives in the manual.

I predict that once the Xw20 grades "catch on" in Europe you will see more car companies recommending that grade. It took a while for 5w30 and 0w30 to catch on over there, but now that is what comes in almost all new vehicles built in Europe. For 5w20 and 0w20, it's just a matter of time.